Billy Meier UFO Contact Hoax: Discussion

soloist, the same should apply to you. Again this is just going around in circles and so on. Were just going to keep debating and neither side thinks
they are wrong. So whats the point in argueing about this case anymore? We pretty much said all that was to be said. All of us said our views on both
sides. Like what else more do you want? there is nothing else to say. Its up to the person him/herself to analyse the data and to make their own
judgements.

Finally we are one the same page! It doesn't matter what he was holding. The evidence was displayed in other pictures.

It doesn't even matter if the last image was photoshopped. That explains why the ship and the lid is not to scale in that picture. Reduce it about 3%
and whala they match. I'm sorry. I do believe in the UFO phenomenon, and I am sure some of them are ET. But how can anyone take the much higher
quality and more reliable evidence seriously with stuff like that holding a shroud over any seriousness in the subject?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
By the way you are shifting the goal post on your previous position of demanding that there should be others to corroborate Meier. I told you up to
200 witnesses corroborate him. What do you have to say to that?

Meier hypnotised/tricked the witnesses into seeing things that weren't there.

Im done with ATS, i pinged trace route and tracked ATS website and low and behold it IS a CIA front. Ofcourse i wont even be bothering posting it
because there is moderators just glaring at this topic.

Yet here you are still...

Billy Meier has been so thoroughly debunked over the years that it amazes me anyone can discuss him with a straight face. This near religious fervor
of his supporters is simply staggering...

CIA front? ...and they'd leave evidence of this just laying out where everyone could find it? PPPshah!

I already expected for you to not respond to my points precisely, I figured you'd do exactly what you ended up doing.

You changed the discussion from "Irreproducability" to "TESTING" exactly as I thought, typical.

"and respond with a valid argument about those. they show the same effect of meiers photos, that you don't seem to think so will not cut it
here"

"the photos have been reproduce several times, several years. Please do not change "Irreproducability" to "TESTING" discussion."

Thanks for proving my point.

2) "The scientific photographic analysis instantly caught them out as small models on strings."

Show me when that was done to any of the links I posted here! because if we follow your anology then those photos from the 3 links I posted must be
real as well since neither of those have been duplicated.

and remember if you want them to be tested as Meier's, they need to send a copy of a copy of a copy for the test just like Meier did.

From the 3 different links that I posted showing they duplicated the effect in meiers photos, why did you choose the iigwest.com ones? I didn't
include those. . .

"If it was so easy we would have had a duplication by now, it's been what, almost 3 decades?"

Duplications are there, that you choose to ignore them because ridiculous arguments that they don't fit your liking is another story, and again why
only meier case has to be prove by duplicating a photo, is there anything new you could add?

Please be serious and tell me you honestly believe that! tell us that when you see that photo you don't see "a model in front of camera" it's so
obvious I don't think you will response directly instead you will do the run around answer in that one!

"The investigation that took place in the 70's directly handled the actual original film and negatives"

There were never and orginal or negative submitted from meier for any testing, the investigators said meier handle them "lithographs" photo-print
copies which quality was degraded and not valid for any testing.

The different is people here (a lot of them are real imagine tech) are providing you with new unbiased analysis with proof that they are models, and
they are not using old analysis from not really trusted investigations done in the 70's that are full of misquotes to favor meier.

You don't even talk about the fact the Meier never sent an original or negative for testing! Why don't you comment on that?

Anyway, you don't respond to anyone with a valid and concrete answer of what they are asking , but instead you keep doing the same famous MH post
spin around in every of your post. That MH game is too old

How many more ways can it be proven to be a hoax?Its not just one thing thats been debunked its countless images and stories of his.Nothing stands up
to scrutiny.I know im bashing my head against a brick wall here and many have said what i have said thousands of times before me but this case has
gone from humorous to just plain annoying.
ATS is far from perfect but the members here have some of the best BS meters and investigative skill on the net and im sure not all of us are CIA
plants.If i am can i please get paid already.

I agree with Effective Unit. Lets be done with this once and for all. As I said in a previous post (which all the Meier supporters selectively
dismissed), let Billy Meier submit his original photos and negatives to independent experts with no bias either way. Same goes for the sounds samples,
metal samples and his original contact notes from the 50's for dating.

Just come up with another thing that bugs me about all this. WHen was the last time Billy took a photo of one of these supposedly alien craft? back in
the early 80's?

How come he hasn't taken any recently? Is it because he claims he doesn't have the negatives from all his earlier work. So if he continues to take
photos now he won't be able to use that as an excuse anymore.

That is of course Lord God Billy is constantly being robbed by the modern day Romans, the CIA from this huge Switzerland Garrison all the Meier
supporters tell us exists somewhere near Billys cult farm.

Sorry there has been no duplication. I have debunked the IIG attempts extensively already. Until I do not see valid duplications, I have decided to
keep my comments short. One can only repeat themselves so much before they realise somebody is not listening.

I posted 3 different links with duplications some even better than meiers and this is what you had to say about it:

"Sorry there has been no duplication" Are you blind or do you like to joke a lot?

none of them was from the IIG but you keep focusing on that. That tells me what you are about.

3 posts and not a single comment on how Meier never sumitted an original or negative for any real testing. Not a comment on the wcufo model in front
of the camera either. This is typical Meier's followers behavior, do you guys go into a seminar or something? Do they teach you "how to avoid the
questions that will hurt the hoax more!"

Meier also admitted that his pictures were fake as the MIB supposedly switched them in all his book publications, of course he never returned the
money to those who bought his books with fake pictures! Is that an action from a prophet? Far from it!

He invented that lame excuse after he got caught again with fake photos.

So be aware that the very pictures you are defending, Meier has already said that they are fake. Ironic!

"Until I do not see valid duplications"

Amazing, is that it? that is your excuse? you will have to do better than that, so basically Meier's photos are real because you said so.

I can play that game too, until I do not see any valid and proper Meier "Original" or negative photo test, it's a complete hoax proven here
countless times.

"One can only repeat themselves so much before they realise somebody is not listening."

3 links with duplications, no orginals or negative from meier, fake wcufo model in front of the camera etc etc, not a single comment from you and you
dare to say I am not the one listening? Are you?

That has to be the quote of the century, it's so childish that its not even funny when you are the one not listening or properly answering anybody
here.

The only reason Meier topics are still allowed in some ufo forums is because it generates traffic, not because it's good or real, it generated the
traffic because of the endless loop that guys like you (Meier followers) do by avoiding the hard questions, flipping from metal, audio, prophecy
discussions when one of the other is proven fake and never answering an argument with something coherent or substancial towards the point that was
made or asked. We already know that game, it is the same game played by Michael Horn many times to promote this hoax dvd sales.

When people type the word Meier in a google search or any search, almost every result associates the word Hoax with it.
I will not be surprised if in the near future the name meier is introduced into the dictionary as a synonym of Hoax!! Meier = hoax

Anyway, it's a complete waste of time to try to talk with a boucing wall and then be called one.

I think it is rich for you to talk about others research, considering you have publically admitted on this forum to not actually reading the metal
sample report, but still passed statements on it.

I am not going to go over old material, as far as I am concerned, you’ve been thoroughly debunked on that.

Now you have brought up Meier’s predictions and claimed to have debunked them. No, actually you have not and I will demonstrate it, just as I
demonstrated your other failed attempts at debunking his evidence.

First thing first I want to expose is your inconsistency. When you find articles are published after the contact notes, you conclude that the contact
notes dates are false:

This was my favorite item to research. I kept finding earlier and earlier articles until I finally came across this one:

Newsweek, 4 August 1975 [NW1]
"Q. What is the highest mountain in the world? Before anyone hastily answers "Mount Everest," he should hearken to some new calculations by a
Smithsonian Institution geophysicist. If you measure from sea level, Everest--at 29,028 feet--still claims the top prize. But if you measure from the
center of the earth, the highest point turns out to be the top of Mount Chimborazo, a hitherto obscure Andean peak in Ecuador."

"Chimborazo's new claim to fame arises from its location and the shape of the earth. The planet is not spherical; it has a measurable bulge around
the equator. Chimborazo lies just 2 degrees south of the equator, almost on top of the bulge. Using satellite data, Dr. E. Michael Gaposchkin
calculated the radius of the earth at this point, then added Chimborazo's altitude of 20,556 feet. The sum: 20,946,233 feet between the mountain's
summit and the earth's center. This tops Everest, which sits at the comparatively low-lying latitude of 28 degrees north, by 7,058 feet."
7,058 feet is just over 2,151 meters.

Note that the above Newsweek article was published shortly after Meier claimed that he was told this information by the Plejarens. It would be pretty
easy for a person to claim he wrote something just a few weeks earlier than he actually did. (And the information may have been published even earlier
elsewhere.)

So here you admit that the Newsweek article is actually after the claimed contact note, but then doubt that the claimed date the contact note was
written down. However, where you can find articles prior to the contact note being written down, you have no problem in accepting the claimed date:

"Meier was encouraged by her to contact a Prof. Michael McElroy of Harvard University with this information"

Here are first public mentions that I found of the information about ozone depletion:

New York Times, 6 September 1974 [NYT1]
"The potential depletion of the ozone layer by nuclear explosions is a new, accidental discovery that arms control officials believe adds an awesome
element to the destructive effects of a nuclear war."

"perhaps it would destroy critical links of the intricate food chain of plants and animals, and thus shatter the ecological structure that permits
man and animals to remain alive on this planet."

New York Times, 17 October 1974 [NYT2]
"The Defense Department estimates that an all-out nuclear war would significantly deplete the protective layer of ozone in the stratosphere but not
to the point of endangering the continuance of life on earth."

"two University of California scientists [...] contend that there was a 4 percent depletion in the ozone layer as a result of 1961-62
explosions."

Science, 25 October 1974 [Sci1]
"Supersonic transports, aerosol sprays, and nuclear weapons [...] are all potential sources of catalytic agents that penetrate the earth's
stratosphere and decompose the ozone that shields living things from the worst of the sun's ultraviolet radiation."

"High intensities of this ultraviolet radiation are harmful to nearly all forms of life"

"An increased incidence of mutation has been observed in certain [plants]."

"There are also some indications that increased radiation will interfere with the growth of plankton in the ocean."

"The controversial evidence is thus that the 1961-1962 bomb tests resulted in a moderate, transient reduction of ozone"

The last quote is the most interesting because this was published after the contact note. But as I have shown above, when it is the case that
something occurs after the contact note, you reject the date:

Much of the ozone information reported in the 7th and 35th Contact Notes appeared in the New York Times months before the claimed date of contact.
The effect of bromine on the ozone layer wasn't in the newspaper until a few days after the date claimed for the 7th Contact. I find it suspicious
that the newspaper article and Meier's Contact Notes both mention Dr. Michael McElroy

Basically it goes like this.

1. Read contact note, note down date of contact note.
2. Look for articles that contained the same information prior to the contact note date
3. If prior articles found, then accept contact note date
4. If prior articles not found, then accept later article and reject contact note date.

You clearly are being inconsistent and selecting only those contact notes for which you can find earlier articles for and rejecting all contact notes
for which you cannot find earlier articles.

Now that it has been demonstrated that you are being inconsistent, I want to move onto your hypothesis that Meier is basically just copying the
information from the articles you cite. First of all, I am not sure if you’ve realised yet: Meier is Swiss, he speaks German and can barely speak
English. Where would he get access to the New York Times , Science and Aviation Weekly in his town in Switzerland?

What you have shown is that Meier’s scientific revelations did exist in at least rudimentary or speculative form amongst scientists which were
published in some specific papers like New York Times, Science and Aviation weekly, but not that Meier had access to them. If Meier is getting his
material from journals and broadsheets, then why is it that you were not able to find any articles to correlate much of his information:

3. 45th Contact, 25 February 1976

"our extraction of petroleum and natural gas from the Earth, damming of waters, construction of huge cities were major contributing factors to
increased earthquake and volcanic activity"

I did not find any clear corroborating reports for these items. I did find a few articles from the early 1970s which implied that oil wells caused
earthquakes, but they were reports about other things which assumed oil extraction caused earthquakes, not reports of actual findings in the
matter

Thus suggesting Meier is not getting his information from articles alone and it is merely coincidental that some of his scientific information exists
in the form of scientific speculations published in some papers at his time which you have not even shown he had access too.

There are some cases where Meier’s information differs from the articles you suggest he took them from. To explain these discrepancies you
arbitrarily decide that Meier has misread the articles or the translator made mistake etc:

7. 115th Contact: Io Plasma Torus

Regarding Io's volcanoes: "the largest portion of all ejected material again falls back on the moon [...]. The rest [...] would be pushed out into
space, while a part of it is drawn by Jupiter and very slowly densifies in its ring to a heavy sulfur-ion-combination."
It appears that either the translator or Meier himself did not properly distinguish between the Io plasma torus and Jupiter's ring. I think the word
"ring" in the above excerpt should be "torus". If Jupiter's ring is what Meier meant, then the described composition is wrong. I have found no
report that Jupiter's ring contains sulfur ions. The Io plasma torus, on the other hand, is thought to primarily consist of sulfur ions. This was
widely reported in 1979 (and is still reported today):

New York Times, 4 March 1979 [NYT5]
"Jupiter is surrounded by a belt of charged particles in the orbit of its satellite Io, and that belt now appears to be composed of ionized sulfur
atoms, stripped of electrons."

New York Times, 12 March 1979 [NYT8]
"The extremely ionized sulfur particles found in the huge ring encircling Jupiter at the orbit of Io"

Aviation Week, 19 March 1979 [AW2]
"Scientists believe some of the particles escape the moon's gravitational pull and continue into space. These particulates could be the source of
the torus--a dough-nut-shaped cloud--that surrounds Jupiter in Io's orbit plane."

You did not find anything to corroborate that sulfer ion particles are ejected into Jupiter’s rings. So you decided you will translate it as
“Io’s torus” instead, because you can find articles for that and then blame the translator for mistranslating. The only one I can see
mistranslating here is you.

I have also caught you selectively reading the contact notes. You only quote the parts of his contact note that you can match up to some earlier
articles, but miss out the parts you cannot match up:

Billy: I have a question here regarding BSE, the cattle madness, as this disease is called here in Switzerland. You explained once that basically
sheep triggered this epidemic and then it was transmitted to cattle. This epidemic apparently can be transmitted to human beings along with all
mammals.

"Ptaah: [...] The incubation period for the disease also varies and must be determined by the life form's resistance to it. This may vary from 3
months to 40 years, even 50. The higher the evolution of the life form, the longer the incubation period. Therefore, with human beings it can range
from 40 to 50 years."

While Meier was ahead of the British government scientists' announcement of the definite link between BSE and CJD, there were other scientists
warning of strong possibilities before Meier did. Here is one such newspaper report which pre-dates Meier's 249th Contact:

The Guardian (London), 29 April 1994 [GL1]
"BSE has been proved more easily transmissible between mammals than previously thought. Mice, pigs, monkeys--the last two are the animals most
physiologically similar to man--have all developed the disease [...] the transmission of BSE to humans cannot be ruled out conclusively."

"we do not yet know the BSE incubation period--it may be 20 or even 30 years."

"Some British scientists predict that BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease), the human version of the deadly brain disease, are closely connected
and are caused by the same agent--a mutated protein or prion. [...] it is enough to eat the meat of BSE-infected cattle to run the risk of developing
CJD"

You admit the British government had not released this information until much later after the contact note was written, but then try to relate it to
an article describing speculations by scientists in the Guardian. I can immediately spot the difference between Meiers information and the
Guardian’s information.

Meier:

“This may vary from 3 months to 40 years, even 50. The higher the evolution of the life form, the longer
the incubation period. Therefore, with human beings it can range from 40 to 50 years."

Guardian:

we do not yet know the BSE incubation period--it may be 20 or even 30 years

If Meier had taken the information from this Guardian article, then why does his contact note mention 3 months to 40 to 50 years incubation period,
and the Guardian article mentions 20 to 30 years? Clearly his information is not the same as the Guardian information. This will become clear now when
I cite the parts of the contact you conveniently missed out:

Ptaah

You are talking about the Gerstmann-Sträussler-Syndrome. Every mammalian life form can be infected by it, and its source is scrapie or BSE,
respectively. The epidemic can be either hereditary or transmitted through bloody saliva in the same way AIDS is transmitted, and through specific
external contacts with items such as feces, blood and meat, as well as the ingestion of infected meat, etc. Whoever claims or questions that
contamination from the BSE epidemic, i.e., the Creutzfeld-JakobSyndrome and Kuru, cannot be transmitted to humans, and that the
Gerstmann-Sträussler-Syndrome cannot be traced back to BSE and scrapie with mammals, must be considered an irresponsible criminal and villain with
contempt for human beings. We have 100 percent proof and absolute certainty, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the correlations and causes of the
disease are based on the data about which I have just informed you. It is also worth mentioning that BSE pathogens cannot be destroyed simply by
cooking the meat and other items, or by producing meatmeal. They can only be destroyed by high temperatures, as high as 700°C (1228°F), and possibly
even up to 1000°C (1768°F), for previously mutated pathogens that have existed for some time now. The incubation period for the disease also
varies and must be determined by the life form's resistance to it. This may vary from 3 months to 40 years, even 50. The higher the evolution of the
life form, the longer the incubation period. Therefore, with human beings it can range from 40 to 50 years.

What is clear here Meier’s information is far more detailed and definite than the Guardian's description. Thus making it very unlikely he has got
his information from the Guardian.

Now let us talk a look at your deconstruction of his prediction of the nuclear accident at the nuclear power plant near Lyons, France.

In the Billy Meier Contact Notes called "Contact 251, Part 2" the following is written:

The danger of accidents in nuclear reactors will increase throughout the world. Regarding this subject, France in particular must be extraordinarily
careful in every way, for one prophecy warns of a strong probability for an accident near Lyon, which can be prevented as long as the responsible
individuals undertake the right steps --- a prophecy can be changed.
First of all, France has the most nuclear power generating plants, 59 in all, of all developed countries. If you were a betting man, you would not
need psychic or extra-terrestrial powers to guess that France might be the country to be most likely to have a nuclear accident. This is like saying
that China will have the most coal mine deaths, and it has a yearly average of 3,000 deaths already.

You select to deconstruct the prediction which was the least definitive in the 251st contact to attempt to show us how vague these predictions are.
However, again you used selective reading, and missed out the predictions in the same contact which were definite and have actually come true:

first steps will be taken for a flight to Mars, but will not be blessed with good fortune. However, the next flight, which ensues very soon, will
have better luck although it will encounter certain difficulties due to unexpected technical problems.

2 missions to Mars. The first one will be a failure, the second will be a success.

That is indeed what happened. As for the rest of the predictions in the contact foretelling WW3, you don’t have too long to wait to find out either
way as Meier predicts this to start in either 2010 or 2011. And if current events as forecasted by experts are any indication, Meier's predictions
are coming true.

From 215th Contact, Saturday, February 28, 1987, 2.09 am:

Yet the misery on Earth will continue, as two terrible civil wars will break out in America, whereby one will follow the other. Afterwards, the
United States of America will break apart and deadly hostility will prevail among her, which then leads to the division into five different
territories; and it cannot be prevented that sectarian fanatics will play a dictatorial role.

Corroboration:

Civil War in USA by 2009-2010

Top Russian political and economic analyst predicts civil war in America by 2009-2010, America to split up into 5 or 6 parts.

Civil war in USA by 2012: America to become a third world country

Top American economic analyst predicts civil war in USA by 2012: He says people will murder each other over bread and water.

And China becomes dangerous, especially to India, as also at this time China maintains uneasy relations with her. China will attack India; and if
biological weapons are used, around 30 million human beings will be killed in the area of and around New Delhi alone. However, this will not be the
end yet—because the effect of biological bombs and missiles, etc., used cannot be controlled at that time, and terrible epidemics unknown up to that
point in time will arise and will spread quickly to many areas. Also Pakistan will allow herself to be misled to instigate a war against India, which
will be especially dangerous in view of the fact that both countries are developing atomic weapons.

Corroboration:

Indian Army fears China attack by 2017

The Indian military fears a ‘Chinese aggression’ in less than a decade. A secret exercise, called ‘Divine Matrix’, by the army’s
military operations directorate has visualised a war scenario with the nuclear-armed neighbour before 2017.

“A misadventure by China is very much within the realm of possibility with Beijing trying to position itself as the only power in the region. There
will be no nuclear warfare but a short, swift war that could have menacing consequences for India,” said an army officer, who was part of the
three-day war games that ended on Wednesday.

In the military’s assessment, based on a six-month study of various scenarios before the war games, China would rely on information warfare (IW) to
bring India down on its knees before launching an offensive.

The war games saw generals raising concerns about the IW battalions of the People’s Liberation Army carrying out hacker attacks for military
espionage, intelligence collection, paralysing communication systems, compromising airport security, inflicting damage on the banking system and
disabling power grids. “We need to spend more on developing information warfare capability,” he said.

The war games dispelled the notion that China would take at least one season (one year) for a substantial military build-up across India’s
northeastern frontiers. “The Tibetan infrastructure has been improved considerably. The PLA can now launch an assault very quickly, without any
warning, the officer said

I'm sorry, but you are operating on a false assumption. You are assuming that Meier is telling the truth about when the contact notes happened. All
of the predictions indicated in the contact notes that the IIG has looked into have publication dates AFTER the predicted event happened. This is not
PREdiction, but POSTdiction. If you able to point me towards a prediction contained in a contact note or book that has a verifiable publication date
PRIOR to the predicted event occurring then I will consider it a possibility and research it. Until such time there is nothing to look into.

Here is an example of postdiction. Prior to September 11, 2001 no psychic in the world published a prediction saying that there would be an attack on
the World Trade Center that would lead to the destruction of the towers. AFTER September 11, 2001 there were several psychics who claimed to have
predicted the destruction of the towers.

"Postdiction (or post-shadowing, retroactive clairvoyance, or prediction after the fact) is an effect of hindsight bias that explains claimed
predictions of significant events, such as plane crashes and natural disasters. In religious contexts it is frequently referred to by the Latin term
vaticinium ex eventu, or foretelling after the event." source: www.reference.com...

I have not actually made any claims that Meier predicted any of these. I believe I have said earlier in this thread or the other one that because I
have no way of verifying that Meier's contact notes were published before the predicted events, that I cannot say with any degree of certainty that
he did predict any of these events. However, you are certainly being inconsistent. When you can point out articles containing similar information to
Meier before the contact date, you have no issue with the date the contact note happened. And when you cannot, suddenly you have an issue with the
date the contact date happened.

It is interesting how you jump to show that the Lyons nuclear plant accident prediction is wrong, and in the same contact you overlook an accurate
prediction of the Mars Missions. How do you explain that prediction? Postdiction? In which case why is there no postdiction for the Lyons power plant?
You seem to pick and choose what is a prediction and what is a postdiction completely arbitrarily.

Nothing personal, but I do not find your research credible at all in this entire case.

The Bugey Power Station in Lyon, France is actually an example of retrofitting. Meier came up with a prediction and then in 2005 Michael Horn said
that the prediction had come true in 2003. When I showed that it didn't Michael Horn then said that the prediction had come true in 2001. I then
showed that it didn't come true then either.

I'm sorry. I reread what I wrote earlier and I was incorrect in stating that ALL of the Meier predictions were postdictions. A great number of the
ones with specific details are, but a significant number of them are intentionally vague (similar to Nostradamus predictions) that they leave
themselves open for retrofitting and are not useful as actual predictions. My apologies. I should not have been so declarative in my previous
statement.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.